Literature DB >> 9709285

Outcomes of modern screening mammography.

K Kerlikowske1, J Barclay.   

Abstract

The University of California, San Francisco, Mobile Mammography Screening Program is a low-cost, community-based breast cancer screening program that offers mammography to women of diverse ethnic backgrounds (36% nonwhite) in six counties in northern California. Analysis of data collected on approximately 34,000 screening examinations from this program shows that the positive predictive value and sensitivity of modern screening mammography to be lower for women aged 40 to 49 years compared to women aged 50 and older. This lower performance is due to the lower prevalence of invasive breast cancer in younger women and possibly to age differences in breast tumor biology. Because of this lower performance, women in their forties may be subjected to more of the negative consequences of screening, which include additional diagnostic evaluations and the associated morbidity and anxiety, the potential for detecting and surgically treating clinically insignificant breast lesions, and the false reassurance resulting from normal mammographic results. Since the evidence is not compelling that the benefits of mammography screening outweigh the known risks for women aged 40 to 49 years, women considering mammography screening should be informed of the risks, potential benefits, and limitations of screening mammography, so that they can make individualized decisions based on their personal risk status and utility for the associated risks and potential benefits of screening.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9709285     DOI: 10.1093/jncimono/1997.22.105

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr        ISSN: 1052-6773


  8 in total

1.  Women should be fully informed of the potential benefits and harms before screening mammography.

Authors:  K Kerlikowske; V L Ernster
Journal:  West J Med       Date:  2000-11

2.  Optical Fourier techniques for medical image processing and phase contrast imaging.

Authors:  Chandra S Yelleswarapu; Sri-Rajasekhar Kothapalli; D V G L N Rao
Journal:  Opt Commun       Date:  2008-04-01       Impact factor: 2.310

3.  Annual mammography at age 45-49 years and biennial mammography at age 50-69 years: comparing performance measures in an organised screening setting.

Authors:  Lauro Bucchi; Alessandra Ravaioli; Flavia Baldacchini; Orietta Giuliani; Silvia Mancini; Rosa Vattiato; Fabio Falcini; Paolo Giorgi Rossi; Cinzia Campari; Debora Canuti; Enza Di Felice; Priscilla Sassoli de Bianchi; Stefano Ferretti; Nicoletta Bertozzi
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-03-18       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  How Many of the Biopsy Decisions Taken at Inexperienced Breast Radiology Units Were Correct?

Authors:  Özlem Demircioğlu; Meral Uluer; Erkin Arıbal
Journal:  J Breast Health       Date:  2017-01-01

5.  Noninvasive functional optical spectroscopy of human breast tissue.

Authors:  N Shah; A Cerussi; C Eker; J Espinoza; J Butler; J Fishkin; R Hornung; B Tromberg
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2001-04-03       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Informed decision making before initiating screening mammography: does it occur and does it make a difference?

Authors:  Larissa Nekhlyudov; Rong Li; Suzanne W Fletcher
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 3.377

7.  Racial differences in follow-up of abnormal mammography findings among economically disadvantaged women.

Authors:  Swann A Adams; Emily R Smith; James Hardin; Irene Prabhu-Das; Jeanette Fulton; James R Hebert
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2009-12-15       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  Breast Cancer in Canadian Women.

Authors:  Heather Bryant
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2004-08-25       Impact factor: 2.809

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.